This is a topic I brought up in a game session a couple days ago. I've never created a spellcaster that didn't have Read Magic on him/her at all times (barring 4/9 casters), and with one tentative exception, I'm the only one out of 10 or so people in that group that does so. My main reason for this is that Spellcraft checks to identify spellbooks and especially scrolls are steep at low to mid levels. Even if it weren't difficult, sometimes a scroll could be the solution to an obstacle with no other option, and a 5% or 10% chance of messing up the Spellcraft check to identify the scroll otherwise is too much IMO.
Does anyone else here do this or am I just an oddball?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I only prepare it religiously with Divine Casters. My Arcane casters tend to prepare it agnosticly.
In all seriousness, it is often one I pick, because there aren't a of cantrips that are useful beyond a couple of levels, prestidigitation, mage hand, detect magic and read magic are pretty usual picks for me. Of those though, read magic is probably the least used.
I believe on every full caster I prepare light, detect magic, and read magic. The others vary. For non-full casters, it's much more variable and depends on their character concept.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Millenniamaster wrote: My main reason for this is that Spellcraft checks to identify spellbooks and especially scrolls are steep at low to mid levels. Really?
Deciphering a scroll is the only one of the uses of Spellcraft that does not list a negative effect for failing the check, and there is nothing in the Retry section of the skill addressing deciphering a scroll.
The Scroll section of the Magic Items chapter states, "Deciphering a scroll to determine its contents does not activate its magic unless it is a specially prepared cursed scroll. A character can decipher the writing on a scroll in advance so that she can proceed directly to the next step when the time comes to use the scroll."
Normally, deciphering a scroll is a full-round action, according to the magic item rules.
So, putting it all together, there is nothing that prevents a character from Taking 20 on the Spellcraft check to decipher the scroll. It would take the character two minutes of game time to complete this. An average first level Wizard PC, for example, should be able to easily decipher 7th level spells on Arcane scrolls (assuming a 16+ Intelligence and a rank in Spellcraft) without using Read Magic.
{This is all assuming there hasn't been a FAQ or Errata released that changes what's in the PRD.}
Edit: Also, as for the Spellbook part. In my opinion, that can wait until downtime. The time it takes to copy a spell from another Wizard's spellbook is too long to be done during an adventuring day. If you want to try memorizing a spell from another Wizard's spellbook, you can just prepare Read Magic that morning before continuing your preparation with that book. Knowing what's in that found spellbook right now doesn't really impact the game much, because you can't really do anything with that knowledge until the next day when you can prepare spells again.
I basically always have some way of using it on my casters. Regardless of whether you can take 20 on the Spellcraft check (or have the time), it's much easier to just say "I have Read Magic, can we move on?"
My trapfinder had more interesting things to spend his cantrips known on, and generally can't use the scrolls we find in the field anyway (bard list.) He's relied on the resonant power of a dull grey ioun stone when he had to, and the nerf to that in Adventurers Guide will hurt (eventually, assuming they ever update the PRD.)
My full-on wizard has Read Magic on scrolls as a class feature (and enough Spellcraft to take 1 on almost anything anyway), so he doesn't bother preparing it anymore.
Other than that, all of my casters either know it or memorize it (except for rare situations.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shaventalz wrote: I basically always have some way of using it on my casters. Regardless of whether you can take 20 on the Spellcraft check (or have the time), it's much easier to just say "I have Read Magic, can we move on?" I'm not sure why saying, "I have Read Magic, can we move on?" is any easier to say than, "I'll take a 20, can we move on?"
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
As a sorcerer or wizard I like dancing lights or light, detect magic, prestidigitation, message, mending, maybe mage hand, maybe even an attack cantrip at low levels... hey, where'd the space for read magic go? I guess I'll have to use spellcraft instead.
Similarly for other spellcasters.
Saldiven wrote: shaventalz wrote: I basically always have some way of using it on my casters. Regardless of whether you can take 20 on the Spellcraft check (or have the time), it's much easier to just say "I have Read Magic, can we move on?" I'm not sure why saying, "I have Read Magic, can we move on?" is any easier to say than, "I'll take a 20, can we move on?" Because you don't run into questions over whether you can take 20, you don't have buffs running out as you sit there, you don't have to say "X, unless this is my opposition school, which has a total of X-5"... you just say "I read it."
Also, I suspect using Spellcraft to ID a scroll takes as long as using Spellcraft to ID an item (3 rounds.) That would put the take20 at 6 minutes per scroll. I've ended up in parties with barbarians that start breaking down doors after rounds of inactivity.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shaventalz wrote: Saldiven wrote: shaventalz wrote: I basically always have some way of using it on my casters. Regardless of whether you can take 20 on the Spellcraft check (or have the time), it's much easier to just say "I have Read Magic, can we move on?" I'm not sure why saying, "I have Read Magic, can we move on?" is any easier to say than, "I'll take a 20, can we move on?" Because you don't run into questions over whether you can take 20, you don't have buffs running out as you sit there, you don't have to say "X, unless this is my opposition school, which has a total of X-5"... you just say "I read it."
Also, I suspect using Spellcraft to ID a scroll takes as long as using Spellcraft to ID an item (3 rounds.) That would put the take20 at 6 minutes per scroll. I've ended up in parties with barbarians that start breaking down doors after rounds of inactivity. You suspect wrong.
Quote: Decipher the Writing: The writing on a scroll must be deciphered before a character can use it or know exactly what spell it contains. This requires a read magic spell or a successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). Deciphering a scroll is a full-round action.
Jeraa wrote: shaventalz wrote: Also, I suspect using Spellcraft to ID a scroll takes as long as using Spellcraft to ID an item (3 rounds.) That would put the take20 at 6 minutes per scroll. I've ended up in parties with barbarians that start breaking down doors after rounds of inactivity. You suspect wrong.
Quote: Decipher the Writing: The writing on a scroll must be deciphered before a character can use it or know exactly what spell it contains. This requires a read magic spell or a successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). Deciphering a scroll is a full-round action. I stand corrected.
Still leaves you with a 2-minute break in the action per scroll.
EDIT: For those looking for this, it's in the section on scrolls, rather than the Spellcraft, Magic, or Detect Magic sections.
Two minutes in-game. It's one sentence in real time.
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote: Two minutes in-game. It's one sentence in real time. The barbarians with ADD getting antsy during those two minutes is still reasonable RP, even if the players don't care about the time.
On the subject of take 20s, most of our buffs rarely go above 10 min/level. Take 20s aren't an issue if they do, otherwise, that's what Read Magic is for. I'd much rather have it ready to go than say "Sorry, I don't have that as one of my 4 cantrips today."
Also, I'm not used to take 10s or 20s, mainly because whenever I ask if I can take 10 or 20, I get told I can't (if take 10 is even enough to begin with). As a result, my mind is conditioned to rolling for almost everything.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote: Two minutes in-game. It's one sentence in real time. The barbarians with ADD getting antsy during those two minutes is still reasonable RP, even if the players don't care about the time. Possibly, though I'd put "barbarian that can't stay calm for two minutes" right next to "lawful stupid paladin" (both are valid but disruptive interpretations of their classes), so I'd look for the problem somewhere else.
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote: Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote: Two minutes in-game. It's one sentence in real time. The barbarians with ADD getting antsy during those two minutes is still reasonable RP, even if the players don't care about the time. Possibly, though I'd put "barbarian that can't stay calm for two minutes" right next to "lawful stupid paladin" (both are valid but disruptive interpretations of their classes), so I'd look for the problem somewhere else. Fair enough.
I expect someone in the party to have it, probably a cleric or sorcerer who will have (possibly much) worse Spellcraft than a wizard or bard.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Millenniamaster wrote: Also, I'm not used to take 10s or 20s, mainly because whenever I ask if I can take 10 or 20, I get told I can't (if take 10 is even enough to begin with). As a result, my mind is conditioned to rolling for almost everything. Your GM needs a bonk on the head then. Take 10/Take 20 are rules that have been part of the game for almost 20 years (since D&D 3.0). Arbitrarily preventing players from using those rules just makes the game take longer to accomplish non-heroic, usually tedious actions.
Edit:
shaventalz wrote: Still leaves you with a 2-minute break in the action per scroll. That two minute time frame I mentioned is only for early levels. By no later than 10th level, it's a standard action to identify any scroll you find with a Take 10 for a dedicated caster.
Wizard example.
Starting Int 18 +2 (levels) +4 (headband) = 24 stat.
Spellcraft = 10 ranks + 3 class skill + 7 stat = 20.
Take 10 gets you a score of 30, enough to identify any non-Mythic scroll you come across at a glance.
Saldiven wrote: Millenniamaster wrote: Also, I'm not used to take 10s or 20s, mainly because whenever I ask if I can take 10 or 20, I get told I can't (if take 10 is even enough to begin with). As a result, my mind is conditioned to rolling for almost everything. Your GM needs a bonk on the head then. Take 10/Take 20 are rules that have been part of the game for almost 20 years (since D&D 3.0). Arbitrarily preventing players from using those rules just makes the game take longer to accomplish non-heroic, usually tedious actions. Yup. Doesn't stop it from happening. Or from GMs saying that Take10 takes 10x as long. Or from disallowing it "because there's a chance of failure."
Saldiven wrote: shaventalz wrote: Still leaves you with a 2-minute break in the action per scroll. That two minute time frame I mentioned is only for early levels. By no later than 10th level, it's a standard action to identify any scroll you find with a Take 10 for a dedicated caster.
Wizard example.
Starting Int 18 +2 (levels) +4 (headband) = 24 stat.
Spellcraft = 10 ranks + 3 class skill + 7 stat = 20.
Take 10 gets you a score of 30, enough to identify any non-Mythic scroll you come across at a glance.
30 will get you any non-Mythic scroll not of your opposition schools (if applicable.) And that assumes level 10 (very close to the end of most games I've seen), and an Int-based caster with skill points. So, basically a wizard or witch. Druids will be at least 4 points lower than that (counting Guidance), and clerics probably put everything they had into Religion/Perception/Diplomacy or something. The sorcerer's off in the corner hitting on the barmaid, and probably put more into Bluff than any kind of focused study.
I'm not saying it's impossible to get the check into those kinds of numbers by the double-digit levels. Tools and race can help, and my own wizard is well past that point. It's just neither universal for dedicated casters nor reliable in the levels where a couple minutes matter to your buffs.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
If you're racing through a dungeon before your buffs run out are you really going to stop to search for loot, search for traps on the loot, disarm those traps then cast read magic on any scrolls? Even if you're taking them directly off fallen enemies it's an open question whether you'll think to use a newly-found potion of invisibility or scroll of fireball IME. Identifying items can usually wait until after counting time in minutes has stopped.
Saldiven wrote: Millenniamaster wrote: Also, I'm not used to take 10s or 20s, mainly because whenever I ask if I can take 10 or 20, I get told I can't (if take 10 is even enough to begin with). As a result, my mind is conditioned to rolling for almost everything. Your GM needs a bonk on the head then. Take 10/Take 20 are rules that have been part of the game for almost 20 years (since D&D 3.0). Arbitrarily preventing players from using those rules just makes the game take longer to accomplish non-heroic, usually tedious actions. My GMs don't do this all the time, it's just sporadic when it does happen, so I just decided not to try repeatedly most of the time. Then again, they told me at one point "you need to learn to take 10", so that isn't exactly working out.
Not as a rule. My last character who took it was a bard, and him only because it supported his jack of all trades vibe.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
shaventalz wrote: 30 will get you any non-Mythic scroll not of your opposition schools (if applicable.) And that assumes level 10 (very close to the end of most games I've seen), and an Int-based caster with skill points. So, basically a wizard or witch. Druids will be at least 4 points lower than that (counting Guidance), and clerics probably put everything they had into Religion/Perception/Diplomacy or something. The sorcerer's off in the corner hitting on the barmaid, and probably put more into Bluff than any kind of focused study.
I'm not saying it's impossible to get the check into those kinds of numbers by the double-digit levels. Tools and race can help, and my own wizard is well past that point. It's just neither universal for dedicated casters nor reliable in the...
Those figures I included were bare minimum. They don't include any of the variety of racial abilities, class/archetype abilities, feats, traits, magic items, masterwork tools, etc. that could grant a boost to the roll. It wouldn't be hard for that skill I quoted above to be close to 30 before picking up any dice.
Seriously, I get it. You like taking Read Magic and having it available all the time. That's your choice.
However, I haven't seen any argument that remotely indicates that this choice is necessary or even marginally optimal.
For example, right now, I'm playing a lvl 7 wizard in Iron Gods. He gets four cantrips prepared per day. They are:
Detect Magic: obvious reasons.
Light: he's human, and there are several other humans in the party.
Mage hand: incredibly wide range of uses.
Prestidigitation: again, wide range of uses.
I cannot imagine which of those I would lose in order to have Read Magic instead, considering how rarely I need Read Magic (ie., never) compared to how often I use the cantrips above. The uses for Read Magic are too narrow, opportunities for use come up too rarely, and the need for the cantrip can be obviated by use of a Skill that most casters have, anyway.
Saldiven wrote: Those figures I included were bare minimum. They don't include any of the variety of racial abilities, class/archetype abilities, feats, traits, magic items, masterwork tools, etc. that could grant a boost to the roll. It wouldn't be hard for that skill I quoted above to be close to 30 before picking up any dice.
Seriously, I get it. You like taking Read Magic and having it available all the time. That's your choice.
However, I haven't seen any argument that remotely indicates that this choice is necessary or even marginally optimal.
...
The uses for Read Magic are too narrow, opportunities for use come up too rarely, and the need for the cantrip can be obviated by use of a Skill that most casters have, anyway.
Many PCs pick up Read Magic because they can't focus like that in Spellcraft. They're the "wrong" race/class/archetype, they've spent their feats, and all their skill ranks are tied up in things more central to the character concept.
I agree that it's unnecessary at double-digit levels if you focus in Spellcraft. However, not every PC (nor caster, nor even full caster) can do so. For them, and for lower-level PCs, Read Magic is very important (possibly necessary) for scroll use.
If you don't routinely find scrolls (say, because you're in a tech-based AP) or you're already focused on Spellcraft, Read Magic starts looking a lot more skippable. If you're generally under time constraints and often find conveniently-important scrolls (such as in PFS), the cantrip gains power. Playstyle and environment matter a lot here.
EDIT: Not trying to say that not taking Read Magic is bad or wrong (or badwrong). I'm just pointing out that there are several reasons why someone should think about doing so.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I normally go for wizard or arcanist but no I don't prepare read magic usually. My theory is I can spellcraft my way through most things, if they don't like waiting the next horrible magic trap they spring will probably help with their patience and if need be I can usually wait till tommorow to prepare it.
All of my prepared mages do indeed have read magic and detect magic prepared by default - most of my spontaneous mages knew those spells from the get-go, too (my psychics, not necessarily). My Wizard also always has prestidigitation prepared, and my Psychic and all such spontaneous arcane mages capable of it know that too; my Magus WOULD also have it always prepared, except that as a Kensei (who always has the other two spells prepared), it can't usually afford that third cantrip slot for it (though it does prepare it sometimes).
I haven't played a prepared caster for a long time. I always prepared Read Magic, but I don't think I have ever actually used it in-game.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
